A United States District Court Judge in Texas ruled on Nov. 11 that President Joe Biden’s regime cannot bar healthcare providers from refusing service to gay and transgendered people under the provisions of ‘Obamacare’.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo struck down the White House’s attempt to combine a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2020 that workplace discrimination laws apply to gay and transgender employees and President Obama’s attempt at socialized medicine.
Kacsmaryk came out of the gate swinging in the first paragraph of his ruling, according to Reuters. He wrote, “In his Bostock dissent, Justice Alito foresaw how litigants would stretch the majority opinion like an elastic blanket to cover categories, cases, and controversies expressly not decided.”
Yes, Justice Alito saw this one coming two years ago.
BREAKING REPORT: Biden’s Directive Forcing Doctors to TREAT PATIENTS BASED ON ‘GENDER IDENTITY’ and Not Science RULED UNLAWFUL by Federal U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk…
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) November 12, 2022
The case is fairly straightforward. Two medical doctors, Plaintiffs Susan Neese, M.D., and James Hurly, M.D., were harmed by the Biden Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announcement that it will “interpret and enforce” the law prohibiting (1)“discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”; and (2) “discrimination on the basis of gender identity,” in their practices. According to the case documents, “This is because they ‘can only wonder whether they or their practices will lose federal money if they ever refuse to provide gender-affirming care to a transgender patient.'”
Kacsmaryk ruled that while Congress when adopting Obamacare could have absolutely included “sexual orientation” in the law, especially given their commanding majority in both houses and President Obama in the White House of 2010, could have. But they didn’t.
Indeed the Affordable Care Act passed without a single Republican vote. So, if Democrats wanted to include a provision forcing Doctors to provide ‘transgender’ care, why didn’t they?
The court documents also reveal another serious concern that the doctors had and the court agreed with. “the Court agrees with Plaintiffs ‘that the Notice of Rulemaking does nothing to alleviate’ their objections to the Secretary notification of May 10, 2021[…] This is because ‘a provider can only guess as to whether the powers that be at HHS will regard its refusal to provide puberty blockers to a minor as ‘legitimate’ or ‘nondiscriminatory.’”
